Jennifer Ward
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
While registered as a Speech and Language Therapist, and working at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust:
1. With regard to Patient 1, on or around 23 October 2017, you:
a) Did not consider and/or seek advice from a senior practitioner and/or nurse as to whether undertaking a speech and language therapy assessment was appropriate and/or did not record doing so;
b) Did not undertake and/or record an oro-motor assessment.
c) Contacted the patient’s son regarding food and drink preferences when it was not appropriate to do so.
d) Gave Patient 1 a wet teaspoon despite the patient’s medical notes indicating that no oral intake should have been attempted.
e) Did not check whether suctioning equipment was available prior to your session with Patient 1.
f) Did not record accurate and/or adequate notes in respect of your session with Patient 1.
g) Acted outside the scope of your practice, in that you recorded your conclusion as to Patient 1’s cause of death.
h) Did not seek advice from a senior colleague following your session with Patient 1.
2. With regard to Patient 2, on or around 4 April 2017, you:
a) Undertook an assessment when it was not appropriate to do so.
b) Did not escalate Patient 2 to a senior Speech and Language Therapist.
c) Acted outside the scope of your practice, in that you performed suctioning on Patient 2.
3. With regard to Patient 3, on or around 26 September 2017, you:
a) Did not adequately and/or accurately record the advice given to you by a senior colleague.
b) Recommended that Patient 3 could have sandwiches, but with accepted risk which was not clinically justified and/or in accordance with the advice of a senior Speech and Language Therapist.
c) Did not keep adequate and/or accurate records;
4. When assessing Patient 4, on or around 25 September 2017, you:
a) Did not use an appropriate communication test;
b) Did not keep adequate and/or accurate records.
5. The matters set out in paragraphs 1-4 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
6. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The service bundle contains a copy of a notice of hearing dated 15 July 2026 specifying the time, date and location of the hearing (remote) and giving details of the video conferencing arrangements required to access the hearing. The service bundle shows that the notice was sent and delivered to the Registrant at her registered email address, and was also sent to Clyde & Co, her legal representatives.
2. Rule 13 of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended (‘the Procedure Rules’) provides for a notice period of 28 days before the hearing. That requirement was expressly waived on behalf of the Registrant by Clyde & Co’s email of 14 July 2026.
3. In the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that there had been good service of the notice of hearing.
Proceeding in Absence
4. Miss Khorassani applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant and made submissions based on the HCPTS’s Practice Note, Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant, August 2025.
5. By rule 11 of the Procedure Rules, the Panel has a discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant if satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the notice of the hearing on the registrant. Having decided that there has been good service, the Panel proceeded to consider whether or not to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. In view of Clyde & Co’s email of 29 July 2026 and letter of 31 July 2026, the Registrant expressly waived her right to attend the hearing and to be represented.
6. Although there would be some prejudice to the Registrant in not attending the hearing, written submissions have been provided on her behalf and she has decided not to attend the hearing. An adjournment would serve no purpose as the Registrant would be unlikely to attend a review hearing at a later date.
7. The Panel decided that in all the circumstances, there was no good reason why this mandatory review should not proceed and it therefore decided that the hearing should be conducted in the absence of the Registrant.
Applications for the Hearing to be Conducted wholly or partly in Private
8. By Clyde & Co’s letter of 31 July 2026 the Registrant made an application for the entire hearing to be conducted in private. Ms Khorassani applied for the hearing to be conducted partly in private.
9. Rule 10(1)(a) of the Procedure Rules states -
‘(1) At any hearing— (a) the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing.’
10. The Panel agreed that the matters placed before it in Clyde & Co’s letter of 31 July 2026 fall within the private life exception under rule 10(1)(a) and was assisted in that conclusion by the HCPTS Practice Note, Conducting Hearings in Private, February 2025.
11. Paragraph 7 of that Practice Note states that, ‘As conducting proceedings in private is regarded as the exception, Panels should always consider whether it would be feasible to conduct only part of a hearing in private before deciding to conduct the whole of a hearing in private.’
12. The Panel considered that it is both possible and practicable in the present case to sit partly in private whilst giving due protection to the Registrant’s private life. Accordingly, the Chair announced the Panel’s decision to conduct the hearing partly in private.
Background
13. The following background is substantially taken from that set out in the decision of the third reviewing panel.
14. Following her graduation from University after studying psychology, the Registrant obtained employment in a special needs nursery where she worked as a learning assistant, and subsequently as a speech and language assistant. Her application to study speech and language therapy in order to become a Speech and Language Therapist (“SLT”) was supported by that employer. The Registrant completed her post-graduate diploma in speech and language therapy in 2013. During that training she completed three placements, one of which was undertaken with the East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’).
15. The Registrant commenced employment as a Band 5 SLT with the Trust on 1 September 2014. She was based at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital in Margate (‘the Hospital’). The Registrant’s employment continued until she submitted her resignation on 10 October 2017. Her last official working day was 7 November 2017, but she was on sick leave for some of the period between the submission of the resignation and the end of the employment.
16. The Registrant’s line manager, JH, by May 2017 had identified significant concerns about the Registrant’s practice. JH instigated an informal performance review from 24 May 2017 that lasted until 29 August 2017 which included an action plan. The Registrant’s line manager considered that the informal procedure had not achieved the goals set and a formal review meeting was scheduled for 29 September 2017 in line with the Trust’s HR Guidance for Performance Reviews. A further action plan was set under the formal procedure. The Registrant submitted her letter of resignation on 10 October 2017.
The Substantive Hearing
17. At the substantive hearing which took place on 3-7 February 2020, the panel found all of the facts proved. Although the Registrant did not attend the substantive hearing, she provided a statement, dated 28 January 2020, in which she accepted most of the allegations against her.
18. That panel found that the incidents, both individually and taken together, amounted to misconduct. In so doing, the panel found that the ‘knowledge and skills required to act appropriately with regard to each patient were fundamental. None of them was unusual or specialised and the failings were serious.’ The decision continued: ‘For the avoidance of doubt, there were no factual particulars that the Panel considered to be too insignificant to be included in this finding. Furthermore, the Panel was satisfied that no issue of lack of competence arises.’
19. In relation to impairment, the panel found that the Registrant was impaired in respect of both the private and public component. In respect of the personal component, the panel noted:
• The witnesses called by the HCPC accepted that the Registrant was hard working, caring and had a genuine regard for her patients and wished to advance their interests.
• The Registrant had shown some insight and had admitted many of the failings found proved.
• There was a likelihood of repetition as the Registrant had not been working and she would need to undergo training and supervision, if she were to return to work.
20. In respect of the public component, the panel found that the public ‘would be dismayed if a practitioner against whom these serious findings have been made, and who has not remediated the shortcomings, were to be permitted to return to practise without restriction. Furthermore, if the Panel did make a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise it would be failing in its obligation to declare and uphold proper professional standards.”
21. The panel imposed a two-year Conditions of Practice Order which included the following conditions:
1. You must not accept any offer of employment for which your HCPC registration is required unless the post to which you would be appointed offers you weekly face to face supervision until such time as your Newly Qualified Practitioner (“NQP”) Competencies are signed off as having been met by your supervising SLT who must be working at Band 7 or above.
2. You must not work alone with the following categories of patients:
• patients with dysphagia;
• patients with acute onset;
• end of life patients; and,
• patients with tracheostomies.
To the extent that you need to see patients falling into these prohibited categories in order to satisfy competencies, you are to shadow and/or be directly supervised by a practitioner working at Band 7 or above.
3. You are to attend and satisfactorily complete a Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (“RCSLT”) accredited course on dysphagia.
4. You are to successfully complete the RCSLT NQP Competencies, starting that task afresh.
5. You are to successfully complete the RCSLT Dysphagia Training Competency Framework at Level B.
6. You are to complete a significant event analysis, using the RCSLT CPD Toolkit, in relation to the four patients concerned in this case.
7. You must provide not less than 28 days before the date of the review of this Order, the following documents:
• A certificate of completion of the course required to be undertaken by condition 3.
• Proof that your RCSLT NQP Competencies have been signed off by your supervising SLT.
• A certificate of completion of the Dysphagia Training Competency Framework at Level B required by condition 5.
• Copies of the significant event analyses required by condition 6.
• A report from your supervisor commenting specifically on your progress since this Order was made and your readiness to practise without restriction.
• Your CPD portfolio, demonstrating adherence to the five HCPC’s CPD standards.
8. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you take up any employment for which your HCPC registration is required.
9. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.
10. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:
a. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
b. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
c. any prospective employer (at the time of your application).
The First Review Hearing
22. The Registrant did not attend the first review hearing which took place on 9 February 2022. Her solicitors provided an update on her position. Information was provided that the Registrant had not worked as a Speech and Language Therapist. She had not satisfied any of the conditions on her registration. At that time the Registrant considered it ‘unlikely that she will wish to return the profession of Speech and Language therapy [sic]’. The Registrant’s legal representative stressed that the Registrant meant no disrespect to the panel by her failure to comply with the Conditions of Practice or her failure to attend that review hearing. The Registrant also ‘acknowledges that there were failures in her practice and is wholly understanding of the conditions that she would need to meet in order to practice.’
23. The first reviewing panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and that it was necessary and appropriate to extend the Conditions of Practice Order for a period of a further twelve months. It suggested that the Registrant should use that further time to consider her position. If she no longer wished to remain on the register, she should seek advice from her solicitor and take steps to apply for voluntary removal.
The Second Review Hearing
24. At the second review hearing on 6 February 2023, the Registrant was in attendance with a representative of Clyde & Co. It was submitted on her behalf that the documentation she had provided for that hearing supported her position that there had been a change of heart and she now wished to return to her profession.
25. The documentation she had provided to that panel included a Personal Development Plan (PDP) prepared by her in which she set out goals she had set for herself, including undertaking a Significant Event Analysis, training on dysphagia and record keeping, and refreshing her knowledge and skills. The Registrant had set out her plans as “urgent” or “longer term” goals.
26. Her legal representative submitted that the Registrant acknowledged that her fitness to practise remained impaired. However, following a time of reflection she had come to the conclusion that she wished to undertake the appropriate steps that would allow her to return to practise. The Registrant was now ready to engage with the current conditions of practice. A period of two years was sought on her behalf for conclusion of the appropriate training and courses.
27. The second reviewing panel concluded that the Conditions of Practice Order remained an appropriate and proportionate restriction on the Registrant’s practice in light of her recent change of mind and the information relating to her proposed course of remediation through a PDP. That panel continued the order for further a period of 18 months.
The Third Review Hearing
28. The third review took place before a panel on 31 July 2024. The following matters and conclusions were set out in the written decision of that panel.
29. The Registrant provided the Panel with a 17-page bundle of documentation, which included:
• A seven-page Significant Event Analysis (SEA) in which the Registrant addressed and commented upon her previous clinical and record keeping failings. In this document the Registrant expressed her remorse and insight for her previous actions.
• A certificate of attendance at a course provided by NCORE relating to Dysphagia.
• A reflective piece of writing relating to the Registrant’s attendance at the course on dysphagia.
• A certificate of attendance at an NCORE course relating to Record keeping.
• A reflective piece of writing relating to the Registrant’s attendance at the course on record-keeping.
• An electronically generated list of applications the Registrant had submitted for Band 5 positions. The schedule identified those which had not been pursued for a variety of reasons and those which had been unsuccessful. The last application was then current, the outcome being awaited.
30. The panel heard submissions from the Presenting Officer in which he acknowledged the efforts made by the Registrant towards compliance with the Order but emphasised that there was still much more to be undertaken for full compliance. He submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. The HCPC’s position was, he stated, that the current Conditions of Practice Order should be confirmed and continue for an agreed period of two years.
31. On behalf of the Registrant, it was accepted by the Registrant’s legal representative on her behalf that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. He stated that the Registrant had demonstrated within her SEA that the Registrant had reflected on her actions and had demonstrated her remorse for her previous actions. He acknowledged that the Registrant has not yet undertaken all of the necessary steps and that this was for personal reasons.
32. [Redacted]
33. It was further submitted for the Registrant that she had taken significant steps to complete her PDP proposals as outlined at the last review. In relation to Condition 3 it was submitted that whilst this course was not accredited by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (‘RCSLT’), it was a relevant and appropriate substitute. On behalf of the Registrant the panel was informed that the HCPC had been supplied with information that the RCSLT did not accredit courses and so there were none available to fulfil the wording employed in Condition 3. The supporting reflective pieces of writing endorsed the learning gained at those courses.
34. The Registrant’s representative clarified that there was some uncertainty surrounding the then status of the Registrant’s membership of the RCSLT. He was able to confirm that it was the settled intention of the Registrant to maintain her membership of this organisation.
35. It was submitted that the Registrant has gained insight into her former failings and had fully committed herself to completing her remediation of her former failings. The Registrant was focused on her further training and would continue to actively pursue a position as a Band 5 Speech and Language Therapist which would then allow her to demonstrate in a practical setting her refreshed knowledge.
36. It was submitted for the Registrant that, with the exclusion of Conditions 3 and 6, the Conditions of Practice Order provided sufficient protection for the public. In respect of the length of the Order a period of two years was sought.
37. In its written decision, the panel noted that since the events in 2017 the RCSLT had moved towards dysphagia being subsumed within the defined pre-registration standards of proficiency at RCSLT Dysphagia Training Competency Framework Level B. Implementation of this during training began in academic year 2022/23 and that it was no longer solely the subject of post graduate study. This being the case, it was appropriate for the Registrant to continue with her improving knowledge of this area of practice, whether or not she was required to apply this knowledge in any future appointment.
38. That panel noted that the Registrant’s membership of the RCSLT was going to be reinstated if this was required, and that she will going forward be able to avail herself of the Royal College’s professional publications, guidance and journals.
39. The panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. It noted that the Registrant had not complied with all of the conditions imposed by the previous panels, and this was in part due to her continuing inability to secure a position as a Band 5 Speech and Language Therapist. The completion of the conditions relating to her professional competences had also been hindered by her recent family circumstances. In light of those factors, the panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired.
40. The panel considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order remained sufficient and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case and it took into account the following:
• The Registrant has not practised since the end of 2017 and the Panel noted that there was still much work to do to update her knowledge and skills and to address the concerns identified by the substantive hearing panel.
• The Registrant was still certain about her plans to return to practise as evidenced by the number of applications for posts that had been submitted.
• The Registrant’s former failings had been acknowledged within her SEA (as required by Condition 6) and the reasons for those failings fully explored within that piece of reflective writing.
41. The panel concluded that in light of those matters a Conditions of Practice Order remained an appropriate and proportionate restriction. The panel reviewed the conditions of practice and considered that the necessity for Conditions 3 and 6 had been addressed by the course which the Registrant had attended and her SEA. Those two conditions had, in the panel’s view, been discharged, if not in full, to the extent that they could in view of no accreditation being available through the means of the RCSLT.
42. In relation to the other conditions the panel was content for them to remain but made two small drafting changes to conditions 2 and 10 as they formerly were and 2 and 8 as redrafted. Those conditions are to be varied as follows:
· Condition 2 by the deletion of the words ‘need to see’ and replaced by ‘to assess and treat’. This change of wording better reflected the practical situation.
· Condition 8 (formerly 10) by the inclusion of the words ‘for any positions that require your registration as a Speech and Language Therapist’. The addition of this wording clarified and limited the extent of the disclosure.
43. The panel next considered the appropriate length of the order. The panel carefully balanced the need to ensure that the Registrant’s progress would be appropriately monitored and the need to allow a realistic length of time for her to engage with suitable training opportunities, build her confidence, and, in due course, begin practising under the conditions of practice. The panel noted that the parties agreed that two years was an appropriate period and the panel agreed with that length of time, particularly in light of the current family situation and the paucity of Band 5 positions that may be available.
44. The third reviewing panel therefore decided to vary and extend the Conditions of Practice Order for a period of two years in the following terms:
1. You must not accept any offer of employment for which your HCPC registration is required unless the post to which you would be appointed offers you weekly face to face supervision until such time as your Newly Qualified Practitioner (“NQP”) Competencies are signed off as having been met by your supervising SLT who must be working at Band 7 or above.
2. You must not work alone with the following categories of patients:
• patients with dysphagia;
• patients with acute onset;
• end of life patients; and,
• patients with tracheostomies.
To the extent that you need to assess and treat patients falling into these prohibited categories in order to satisfy competencies, you are to shadow and/or be directly supervised by a practitioner working at Band 7 or above.
3. You are to successfully complete the RCSLT NQP Competencies, starting that task afresh.
4. You are to successfully complete the RCSLT Dysphagia Training Competency Framework at Level B.
5. You must provide not less than 28 days before the date of the review of this Order, the following documents:
a. Proof that your RCSLT NQP Competencies have been signed off by your supervising SLT.
b. A certificate of completion of the Dysphagia Training Competency Framework at Level B required by condition 4.
c. A report from your supervisor commenting specifically on your progress since this Order was made and your readiness to practise without restriction.
d. Your CPD portfolio, demonstrating adherence to the five HCPC’s CPD standards.
6. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you take up any employment for which your HCPC registration is required.
7. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.
8. You must inform the following parties (for any positions that require your registration as a Speech and Language Therapist) that your registration is subject to these conditions:
A. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
C. any prospective employer (at the time of your application).
The Present (Fourth) Review Hearing
45. Miss Khorassani referred to the background of the case as set out in the decisions of the previous panels contained in the main hearing bundle. She submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practice remained impaired and that in view of the Registrant’s anticipated application for Voluntary Removal as set out in Clyde & Co’s letter of 31 July 2026, the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances was to extend the present Conditions of Practice Order for a further period of 12 months.
46. [Redacted]
47. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted.
Decision
48. This is a mandatory review of the Conditions of Practice Order under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (‘the 2001 Order’).
49. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired by reference to the findings made by the original panel.
50. In making its decision, the Panel took into account the HCPTS’s Practice Note, Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders (August 2025). Paragraph 14 of that Practice Note states:
‘The key issue which needs to be addressed is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed or last reviewed. The factors to be taken into account include:
a. the steps which the registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision;
b. the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed;
c. the steps which the registrant has taken to maintain or improve his or her professional knowledge and skills;
d. [not relevant to this case];
e. whether the registrant has complied with the existing order and, if it is a condition of practice order, has practised safely and effectively within the terms of that order.’
51. The Panel also refers to the HCPTS’s Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment (August 2025) and to the ‘personal component’ and ‘public component’ of impairment.
52. The Panel considers that the misconduct is by its nature capable of remediation. It acknowledges that the Conditions (insofar as they require positive action addressing clinical shortcomings in the Registrant’s practice) are in significant part dependent upon the Registrant having secured employment as a registered practitioner. Since the last hearing and in the period since the original hearing, the Registrant has been unable to secure such employment, even though she has applied for work as a registered practitioner.
53. However, other than applying for work as a registered practitioner, the Registrant has taken no further action at all to address those clinical failings since the third review hearing took place on 31 July 2024, over two years ago.
54. The Panel acknowledges the steps taken by the Registrant to address the shortcomings in her practice as found by the previous reviewing panels. However, it considers those steps to be very limited, given the broad range of failings identified by the findings of the original panel.
55. In all the circumstances, the panel has concluded that the Registrant has not demonstrated either the insight or the remedial action necessary to address adequately the shortcomings in her clinical practice that were found by the original panel.
56. The Panel is satisfied that a risk of repetition of the misconduct is likely were the Registrant to work as a registered practitioner without restriction. Further, in view of the nature of the misconduct, service users are likely to be put at risk if the Registrant were to work as a Speech and Language Therapist in those circumstances.
57. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired by reference to the personal component.
58. The Panel also concluded that in view of the risk of repetition and potential harm to service users, members of the public would expect a finding of impairment to be made in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and its regulation. That is particularly the case where (despite the personal mitigation placed before the Panel) nothing has happened in the past two years to reduce the risk of repetition, and where so little has happened in the previous period of more than four years to remedy the professional failings that gave rise to the original finding of misconduct.
59. Therefore, the Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired by reference to the public component as well as by reference to the personal component.
60. Having concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, the Panel considered what if any sanction should be imposed under Article 30(1),(5) of the 2001 Order. The Panel took into account the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy 2 March 2026 (‘the Sanctions Policy’).
61. In view of the Panel’s decision on impairment, ‘no action’ would be a wholly inappropriate response to those findings.
62. A Caution Order is the first potential sanction in order of seriousness. However, the issue is neither isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature, there is a risk of repetition, the Registrant’s insight is not sufficient and she has yet to complete appropriate remediation (see paragraph 147 of the Sanctions Policy).
63. The next sanction in order of seriousness is Conditions of Practice (paragraphs 152-162 of the Sanctions Policy). In deciding whether or not such an order is appropriate, the Panel considered whether a Suspension Order would now be the appropriate sanction.
64. As a result of advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel reminded itself that the decision on sanction is entirely a matter for it. However, in making that decision, it is a relevant factor that the regulator considers Conditions of Practice for a period of 12 months to be a sufficient and proportionate response in view of the circumstances as they are today. Thus, the Panel is to give such weight as it considers appropriate to that position, while bearing in mind that the decision on sanction is entirely a matter for the Panel.
65. The Panel acknowledges that in the present circumstances a Conditions of Practice Order is not likely to lead to remediation of the misconduct found by the original panel, because of the likelihood of a Voluntary Removal Application. However, the Panel considers that Conditions of Practice in suitable form would protect the public from the risk of repetition and therefore from the potential harm.
66. The Panel considers that at this stage a Suspension Order would be a disproportionate response to the impairment.
67. In the circumstances, the Panel has decided to vary and extend the Conditions of Practice Order by a further period of 12 months. The variation addresses the fact that in view of the further period of two years that has elapsed, the risks presented by deskilling also require to be addressed. A new condition 1 has been added to that effect.
68. The Panel decided that a period of 12 months was appropriate, bearing in mind that any application for Voluntary Removal has to be submitted by the Registrant, considered and decided. The Panel noted that the HCPC has sought an extension of 12 months to the current order and the Panel considers this to be a necessary and proportionate period for the Order.
69. The Panel observes that were the application for Voluntary Removal to fail and this case has to be further reviewed on the expiry of the Panel’s Order, any continued lack of significant progress on the part of the Registrant towards remedying the misconduct in what would be more than seven years since the date of the Substantive hearing, may well weigh heavily with a future reviewing panel. In those circumstances, the likelihood of a more severe sanction may well increase.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to vary and extend the Conditions of Practice Order against the registration of Jennifer Ward (née Jennifer Carlaw) for a further period of 12 months on the expiry of the existing Order. The terms of the varied conditions are set out below:
1. You must successfully meet the requirements of the HCPC ‘Returning to Practice’ document, which was published in 2017 and updated last in 2025.
2. You must not accept any offer of employment for which your HCPC registration is required unless the post to which you would be appointed offers you weekly face to face supervision until such time as your Newly Qualified Practitioner (“NQP”) Competencies are signed off as having been met by your supervising SLT who must be working at Band 7 or above.
3. You must not work alone with the following categories of patients:
• patients with dysphagia;
• patients with acute onset;
• end of life patients; and,
• patients with tracheostomies.
To the extent that you need to assess and treat patients falling into these prohibited categories in order to satisfy competencies, you are to shadow and/or be directly supervised by a practitioner working at Band 7 or above.
4. You are to successfully complete the RCSLT NQP Competencies, starting that task afresh.
5. You are to successfully complete the RCSLT Dysphagia Training Competency Framework at Level B.
6. You must provide not less than 28 days before the date of the review of this Order, the following documents:
a. Proof that your RCSLT NQP Competencies have been signed off by your supervising SLT.
b. A certificate of completion of the Dysphagia Training Competency Framework at Level B required by condition 4.
c. A report from your supervisor commenting specifically on your progress since this Order was made and your readiness to practise without restriction.
d. Your CPD portfolio, demonstrating adherence to the five HCPC’s CPD standards.
7. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you take up any employment for which your HCPC registration is required.
8. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.
9. You must inform the following parties (for any positions that require your registration as a Speech and Language Therapist) that your registration is subject to these conditions:
A. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
C. any prospective employer (at the time of your application).
Notes
The Order imposed today will apply from 5 September 2026.
This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 5 September 2027.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Jennifer Ward
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/08/2026 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Interim Conditions of Practice |
| 31/07/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Conditions of Practice |
| 09/02/2022 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Conditions of Practice |